Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025 (OFFSITE LINK)- SEDM. Identifies how these legal terms are used to convert your PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights without your consent. Describes how to stay private and challenge attempts to make you public.

Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 -how governments abuse language to CRIMINALLY kidnap your civil legal identity to a legislatively foreign jurisdiction and make you into a compelled SLAVE, and how to stop them.

Getting a USA Passport
as a "state national" -how to apply for and obtain
a passport as an exclusively private human who is neither domiciled
nor resident on of federal territory, and is therefore not a federal
statutory "person", "individual", or "U.S. person".

Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201 (OFFSITE LINK)-Attach this to
all tax forms you are compelled to fill out in order to correctly document
your tax status and the obligations that attach to it on the part of
all.

“General expressions”, and especially those relating to geographical terms, franchise statuses, or citizenship, are the biggest source of FRAUD in courtrooms across the country. By “general expressions”, we mean those which:

The speaker is either not accountable or REFUSES to be accountable for the accuracy or truthfulness or definition of the word or expression.

Fail to recognize that there are multiple contexts in which the word could be used.

2.1 CONSTITUTIONAL (States of the Union).

2.2 STATUTORY (federal territory).

Are susceptible to two or more CONTEXTS or interpretations, one of which the government representative interpreting the context stands to benefit from handsomely. Thus, “equivocation” is undertaken, in which they TELL you they mean the CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation but after receiving your form or pleading, interpret it to mean the STATUTORY context.

EQUIVOCA'TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men. Equivocation is incompatible with the christian character and profession.
[SOURCE: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,equivocation]

___________________________________________________________

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informallogical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.

PRESUME that all contexts are equivalent, meaning that CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY are equivalent.

Fail to identify the specific context implied on the form.

Fail to provide an actionable definition for the term that is useful as evidence in court.

Government representatives actively interfere with or even penalize efforts by the applicant to define the context of the terms so that they can protect their right to make injurious presumptions about their meaning.

The country “United States” in the family of nations throughout
the world.

United States**

2

The “federal zone”.

United States***

3

Collective states of the Union mentioned throughout the Constitution.

In addition to the above GEOGRAPHICAL context,
there is also a legal, non-geographical context in which the term "United
States" can be used, which is the GOVERNMENT as a legal entity. Throughout
this page and this website, we identify THIS context as "United States****"
or "United States4". The only types of "persons"
within THIS context are public offices within the national and not state government.
It is THIS context in which "sources within the United States" is used
for the purposes of "income" and "gross income" within the Internal
Revenue Code, as proven by:

"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed
a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease
to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy
for the violation of a vested legal right."
[Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)]

Exclusively PRIVATE rights are transformed into public rights
in a process we call "invisible eminent domain using presumption
and words of art".

The way a corrupted Executive Branch or judge accomplish the above
is to unconstitutionally:

PRESUME that ALL of the four contexts for "United States" are
equivalent.

PRESUME that CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and STATUTORY citizens
are EQUIVALENT under federal law. They are NOT. A CONSTITUTIONAL
citizen is a "non-resident" under federal law and NOT a
STATUTORY "national and citizen of the United States** at birth" under 8 U.S.C. §1401.

Use the word "citizenship" in place of "nationality" OR "domicile",
and refuse to disclose WHICH of the two they mean in EVERY context.

Confuse the POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL meaning of words with the
civil STATUTORY context. For instance, asking on government forms
whether you are a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen and then FALSELY
PRESUMING that you are a STATUTORY citizen under 8 U.S.C. §1401.

Confuse the words "domicile"
and "residence"
or impute either to you without satisfying the burden of proving
that you EXPRESSLY CONSENTED to it and thereby illegally kidnap
your civil legal identity against your will. One can have
only one "domicile" but many "residences" and BOTH require your
consent. See:

PRESUME that STATUTORY diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332 and CONSTITUTIONAL diversity of citizenship under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution are equivalent.
8.1
STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL diversity are NOT equal and in fact are mutually exclusive.
8.2 The STATUTORY definition of “State” in 28 U.S.C. §1332(e) is a federal territory. The definition of “State” in the CONSTITUTION is a State of the Union and NOT federal territory.
8.3
They try to increase this confusion by dismissing diversity cases where only diversity of RESIDENCE (domicile) is implied, instead insisting on “diversity of CITIZENSHIP” and yet REFUSING to define whether they mean DOMICILE or NATIONALITY when the term “CITIZENSHIP” is invoked. See Lamm v. Bekins Van Lines, Co, 139 F.Supp.2d. 1300, 1314 (M.D. Ala. 2001)(“To invoke removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity, a notice of removal must distinctly and affirmatively allege each party’s citizenship.”, “[a]verments of residence are wholly insufficient for purposes of removal.”, “[a]lthough ‘citizenship’ and ‘residence’ may be interchangeable terms in common parlance, the existence of citizenship cannot be inferred from allegations of residence alone.”).

Refuse to allow the jury to read the definitions in the law
and then give them a definition that is in conflict with the statutory
definition. This substitutes the JUDGES will for what the law expressly
says and thereby substitutes PUBLIC POLICY for the written law.

Publish deceptive government publications that are in deliberate
conflict with what the statutes define "United States" as and then
tell the public that they CANNOT rely on the publication. The IRS does this with ALL of their publications and it is FRAUD.
See:

This kind of arbitrary discretion is PROHIBITED by the Constitution,
as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:

'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions
of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest,
and review the history of their development, we are constrained
to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and
action of purely personal and arbitrary power.'
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 1064, 1071]

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its
expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government
is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible
body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity
by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow,
and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of
jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the
government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331]

"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are
in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw
an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of
power. They are
then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to
undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate
all power in the hands of that government in which they have so
important a freehold estate."
[Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121]

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers
and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations
of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution
from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general
and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too
well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est
ampliare jurisdictionem.'"
[Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297]

"When all government,
domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn
to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless
the checks provided of one government on another and will become
as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332]

"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating,
plundering, office-building ["trade
or business" scam] and office-hunting would be produced by an
assumption [PRESUMPTION]
of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!"
[Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168]

For further details on the meaning of "United States" in its TWO separate and distinct contexts, CONSTITUTIONAL, and STATUTORY, and how they are deliberately confused and abused to unlawfully create jurisdiction that does not otherwise lawfully exist, see:

It is very important to understand that there are TWO separate, distinct,
and mutually exclusive contexts in which geographical "words of art"
can be used at the federal or national level:

Constitutional.

Statutory.

The purpose of providing a statutory definition of a legal "term"
is to supersede and not enlarge the ordinary, common law, constitutional,
or common meaning of a term. Geographical words of art include:

"State"

"United States"

"alien"

"citizen"

"resident"

"U.S. person"

The terms "State" and "United States" within the Constitution implies
the constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory,
statutory "States" (federal territories), or the statutory "United States"
(the collection of all federal territory). This is an outcome
of the separation of powers doctrine. See:

The U.S. Constitution creates a public trust which is the delegation
of authority order that the U.S. Government uses manage federal territory
and property. That property includes franchises, such as the "trade
or business" franchise. All statutory civil law it creates can
and does regulate only THAT property and not the constitutional States,
which are foreign, sovereign, and statutory "aliens" for the purposes
of federal legislative jurisdiction.

It is very important to realize the consequences of this constitutional
separation of powers between the states and national government.
Some of these consequences include the following:

Statutory "States" as indicated in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and "States" in nearly all federal statutes
are in fact federal territories and the definition does NOT include
constitutional states of the Union.

The statutory "United States" defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC §110(d) includes
federal territory and excludes any land within the exclusive jurisdiction
of a constitutional state of the Union.

Terms on government forms assume the statutory context and NOT
the constitutional context.

Since the separation
of powers doctrine creates two separate jurisdictions that are
legislatively "foreign" in relation to each other, then there are
TWO types of political communities, two types of "citizens", and
two types of jurisdictions exercised by the national government.

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as
to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other,
an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of
Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the
Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law
in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257
(1821)]

A human being domiciled in a Constitutional state and born or naturalized anywhere in the Union is:
6.1. A state national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
6.2. A statutory “non-resident non-person” if exclusively PRIVATE and not engaged in a public office.
6.3.
A statutory "nonresident alien" (26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)) in relation to the national government if they lawfully serve in a public office.

You can be a statutory "nonresident alien" pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii) and a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment "Citizen" AT THE SAME TIME. Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), that there are THREE different and mutually exclusive "United States", and therefore THREE types of "citizens of the United States". Here is an example:

“The 1st section of the 14th article
[Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically
invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship
of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution,
nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress.
It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by
the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen
of the [***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states
composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born
and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories
[STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were
not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]

The "citizen of the United States" mentioned in the Fourteenth
Amendment is a constitutional "citizen of the United States",
and the term "United States" in that context includes states of
the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, you would
NOT be a "citizen of the United States" within any federal statute,
because all such statutes define "United States" to mean federal
territory and EXCLUDE states of the Union. For more details,
see:

Your job, if you say you are a "citizen of the United States"
or "U.S. citizen" on a government form ( a VERY DANGEROUS undertaking!)
is to understand that all government forms presume the statutory
and not constitutional context, and to ensure that you define precisely
WHICH one of the three "United States" you are a "citizen" of, and
do so in a way that excludes you from the civil jurisdiction of
the national government because domiciled in a "foreign state".
Both foreign countries and states of the Union are legislatively
"foreign" and therefore "foreign states" in relation to the national
government of the United States. The following form does that
very carefully:

Even the IRS says you CANNOT trust or rely on ANYTHING on any
of their forms and publications. We cover this in our Reasonable
Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007. Hence,
if you are compelled to fill out a government form, you have an
OBLIGATION to ensure that you define all "words of art" used on
the form in such a way that there is no room for presumption, no
judicial or government discretion to "interpret" the form to their
benefit, and no injury to your rights or status by filling
out the government form. This includes attaching the following
forms to all tax forms you submit:

We started off this document with maxims of law proving that "a
deceiver deals in generals". Anyone who refuses to
identify the precise context, statutory or constitutional, for EVERY
"term of art" they are using in the legal field ABSOLUTELY IS A
DECEIVER.

For further details on the TWO separate and distinct contexts for geographical terms, being CONSTITUTIONAL, and STATUTORY, see:

Statutory citizenship is a legal status that designates a person’s
domicile while constitutional citizenship is a political status that
designates a person’s nationality. Understanding
the distinction between nationality and domicile is absolutely critical.

Nationality:
1.1. Is not necessarily consensual
or discretionary. For instance, acquiring nationality by
birth in a specific place was not a matter of choice whereas acquiring
it by naturalization is.
1.2. Is a political status.
1.3. Is defined by the Constitution, which is a political document.
1.4. Is synonymous with being a “national” within statutory law.
1.5. Is associated with a specific COUNTRY.
1.6. Is called a “political citizen” or a “citizen of the United States in a political sense” by
the courts to distinguish it from a STATUTORY citizen. See Powe v. United States, 109 F.2d 147 (1940).

2.2. Is a civil status.
2.3. Is not even addressed in the constitution.
2.4. Is defined by civil statutory law RATHER than the constitution.
2.5. Is in NO WAY connected with one’s nationality.
2.6. Is usually connected with the word “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant” in statutory
law.
2.7. Is associated with a specific COUNTY and a STATE rather than a COUNTRY.
2.8. Implies one is a “SUBJECT” of a SPECIFIC MUNICIPAL but not NATIONAL government.

Nationality and domicile, TOGETHER determine the political/CONSTITUTIONAL
AND civil/STATUTORY status of a human being respectively. These important distinctions are recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary:

“nationality – That quality or character which arises from
the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or state. Nationality
determines the political status of the individual, especially
with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil
[statutory] status. Nationality arises either by birth or by
naturalization.“
[Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990), p. 1025]

President Barrack Obama affirmed our assertions that there are TWO components to your citizenship status at the end of his State of the Union address given on 2/12/2013:

The U.S. Supreme Court also confirmed the above when they held the
following. Note the key phrase “political jurisdiction”,
which is NOT the same as legislative/statutory jurisdiction. One can have a political status of “citizen” under the constitution
while NOT being a “citizen” under federal statutory law because not
domiciled on federal territory. To have the status of “citizen”
under federal statutory law, one must have a domicile on federal territory:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources
only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens
are 'all persons born or naturalized in the
United States
, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some
respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political
jurisdiction,
and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance.
And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do
[169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization
in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization
acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign
territory is acquired.”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]

“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born
or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and
the claim to be protected is earned by considerations
which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard. Such
domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born
or naturalized citizens pay for theirs. He is under the
bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks
them, incurs the same penalties. He owes the same obedience to
the civil laws. His property is, in the same way and to
the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the
Government. In nearly all respects, his and their condition as
to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”
[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

Notice in the last quote above that they referred to a foreign national
born in another country as a “citizen”. THIS is the REAL
“citizen” (a domiciled foreign national) that judges and even tax withholding
documents are really talking about, rather than the “national” described
in the constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens” or “citizens of the United States***” in the Fourteenth Amendment rely on the CONSTITUTIONAL context for the geographical term “United States”, which means states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory.

“. . .the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases provides authoritative guidance on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Insular Cases were a series of Supreme Court decisions that addressed challenges to duties on goods transported from Puerto Rico to the continental United States. Puerto Rico, like the Philippines, had been recently ceded to the United States. The Court considered the territorial scope of the term "the United States" in the Constitution and held that this term as used in the uniformity clause of the Constitution was territorially limited to the states of the Union. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 ("[A]ll Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." (emphasis added)); see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251, 21 S.Ct. 770, 773, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901) ("[I]t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States. The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of States, to be governed solely by representatives of the States; ... In short, the Constitution deals with States, their people, and their representatives."); Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. Puerto Rico was merely a territory "appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution." Downes, 182 U.S. at 287, 21 S.Ct. at 787.

The Court's conclusion in Downes was derived in part by analyzing the territorial scope of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (emphasis added). The Fourteenth Amendment states that persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). The disjunctive "or" in the Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that "there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no[t] part of the Union" to which the Thirteenth Amendment would apply. Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773. Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, however, "is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to [the United States '] jurisdiction,' " but is limited to persons born or naturalized in the states of the Union. Downes, 182 U.S. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773 (emphasis added); see also id. at 263, 21 S.Ct. at 777 ("[I]n dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located.").
[Valmonte v. I.N.S., 136 F.3d. 914 (C.A.2, 1998)]

Congress, under the Act of February 21, 1871, ch. 62, § 34, 16 Stat. 419, 426, expressly extended the Constitution and federal laws to the District of Columbia. See Downes, 182 U.S. at 261, 21 S.Ct. at 777 (stating that the "mere cession of the District of Columbia" from portions of Virginia and Maryland did not "take [the District of Columbia] out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution.").

STATUTORY citizens under 8 U.S.C. §1401, on ther other hand, rely on the STATUTORY context for the geographical term “United States”, which means federal territory and EXCLUDES states of the Union:

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(a)(10) State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

______________

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES
Sec. 110. Same; definitions

(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

One CANNOT simultaneously be BOTH a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen AND a STATUTORY citizen at the same time, because the term “United States” has a different, mutually exclusive meaning in each specific context.

“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States[*], were not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]

The Court today holds that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to Bellei [an 8 U.S.C. §1401 STATUTORY citizen]. The Court first notes that Afroyim was essentially a case construing the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Citizenship Clause declares that: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States * * * are citizens of the United States * * *.' the Court reasons that the protections against involuntary expatriation declared in Afroyim do not protect all American citizens, but only those 'born or naturalized in the United States.' Afroyim, the argument runs, was naturalized in this country so he was protected by the Citizenship Clause, but Bellei, since he acquired his American citizenship at birth in Italy as a foreignborn child of an American citizen, was neither born nor naturalized in the United States and, hence, falls outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees declared in Afroyim. One could hardly call this a generous reading of the great purposes the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to bring about. While conceding that Bellei is an American citizen, the majority states: 'He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen.' Therefore, the majority reasons, the congressional revocation of his citizenship is not barred by the Constitution. I cannot accept the Court's conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizenship of some Americans and not others. [. . .]

The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority's own vague notions of 'fairness.' The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court's own view of what is 'fair, reasonable, and right.' Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei's citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair.' The majority applies the 'shock-the-conscience' test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is 'irrational or arbitrary or unfair,' the statute must be constitutional.

[. . .]

Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d. 408 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1917, 28 L.Ed.2d. 288, I suppose today's decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court's opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute.
[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)]

STATUTORY citizens are the ONLY type of “citizens” mentioned in the entire Internal Revenue Code, and therefore, the income tax under Subtitles A and C does not apply to the states of the Union.

Every person [“person” as used in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343, which both collectively are officers or employees of a corporation or a partnership with the United States governmnet] born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70–506, C.B. 1970–2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.
[SOURCE: http://law.justia.com/cfr/title26/26-1.0.1.1.1.0.1.2.html]

If you look in 8 U.S.C. §§1401-1459,. the ONLY type of “citizen” is the one mentioned in 8 U.S.C. §1401, which is a human born in a federal territory not part of a state of the Union. Anyone who claims a state citizen or CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is also a a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen” subject to the income tax is engaging in criminal identity theft as documented in the following. They are also criminally impersonating a “U.S. citizen” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §911:

Domicile and NOT nationality is what imputes a status under the tax
code and a liability for tax. Tax liability is a civil
liability that attaches to civil statutory law, which in turn attaches
to the person through their choice of domicile. When you CHOOSE a domicile, you elect or nominate a protector, which
in turn gives rise to an obligation to pay for the civil protection
demanded. The method of providing that protection is the
civil laws of the municipal (as in COUNTY) jurisdiction that you chose
a domicile within.

"domicile.A person's legal
home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent
home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent
he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94.
Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile"
therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which
he intends to return even though he may actually reside
elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only
one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important
since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction
of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise
the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
[Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]

Later versions of Black’s Law Dictionary attempt to cloud this important
distinction between nationality and domicile in order to unlawfully
and unconstitutionally expand federal power into the states of the Union
and to give federal judges unnecessary and unwarranted discretion to
kidnap people into their jurisdiction using false presumptions. They do this by trying to make you believe that domicile and
nationality are equivalent, when they are EMPHATICALLY NOT. Here is an example:

“nationality – The relationship between a citizen of a nation
and the nation itself, customarily involving allegiance by the citizen
and protection by the state; membership in a nation. This term
is often used synonymously with citizenship. “
[Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)]

Federal courts regard the term “citizenship” as equivalent to domicile,
meaning domicile on federal territory.

The term “citizenship” is
being stealthily used by government officials as a magic word that allows
them to hide their presumptions about your status. Sometimes they
use it to mean NATIONALITY, and sometimes they use it to mean DOMICILE.

The use of the word “citizenship”
should therefore be AVOIDED when dealing with the government because
its meaning is unclear and leaves too much discretion to judges and
prosecutors.

When someone
from any government uses the word “citizenship”, you should:
3.1. Tell them NOT to use the word, and instead to use “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.2. Ask them whether they mean “nationality” or “domicile”.
3.3. Ask them WHICH political subdivision they imply a domicile within: federal territory
or a constitutional state of the Union.

A failure to either understand or apply the above concepts can literally
mean the difference between being a government pet in a legal cage called
a franchise, and being a free and sovereign man or woman.

Below is a table that maps the various “Citizenship
status” options in Title
8 of the U.S. Code to a “Income tax status” found in the Internal
Revenue Code, which is Title 26 of the U.S.
Code. If a column contains the word “yes”, then the citizenship
status row and the corresponding tax status column are equivalent to
each other from a legal perspective.

Domicile is a prerequisite to having any civil status per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. One therefore cannot be a statutory "alien" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3) without a domicile on federal territory. Without such a domicile, you are a transient foreigner and neither an "alien" nor a "nonresident alien".

”United States” is described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38), (a)(36) and 8 C.F.R. §215.1(f) and includes only federal territory and possessions and excludes all Constitutional Union states. This is a product of the separation of powers doctrine that is the heart of the United States Constitution.

A “nonresident alien individual” who has made an election under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h) to be treated as a “resident alien” is treated as a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of withholding under I.R.C. Subtitle C but retains their status as a “resident alien” under I.R.C. Subtitle A. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii).

A "non-person" is really just a transient foreigner who is not "purposefully availing themselves" of commerce within the legislative jurisdiction of the United States on federal territory under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. The real transition from a "NON-person" to an "individual" occurs when one:
2.1. "Purposefully avails themself" of commerce on federal territory and thus waives sovereign immunity. Examples of such purposeful availment are the next three items.
2.2. Lawfully and consensually occupying a public office in the U.S. government and thereby being an “officer and individual” as identified in 5 U.S.C. §2105(a). Otherwise, you are PRIVATE and therefore beyond the civil legislative jurisdiction of the national government.
2.3. Voluntarily files an IRS Form 1040 as a citizen or resident abroad and takes the foreign tax deduction under 26 U.S.C. §911. This too is essentially an act of "purposeful availment". Nonresidents are not mentioned in section 911. The upper left corner of the form identifies the filer as a “U.S. individual”. You cannot be an “U.S. individual” without ALSO being an “individual”. All the "trade or business" deductions on the form presume the applicant is a public officer, and therefore the "individual" on the form is REALLY a public officer in the government and would be committing FRAUD if he or she was NOT.
2.4. VOLUNTARILY fills out an IRS Form W-7 ITIN Application (IRS identifies the applicant as an "individual") AND only uses the assigned number in connection with their compensation as an elected or appointed public officer. Using it in connection with PRIVATE earnings is FRAUD.

What turns a “non-resident NON-person” into a “nonresident alien individual” is meeting one or more of the following two criteria found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii):
3.1. Residence/domicile in a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-7(a)(1).
3.2. Residence/domicile as an alien in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(d).

All “taxpayers” are STATUTORY “aliens” or “nonresident aliens”. The definition of “individual” found in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) does NOT include “citizens”. The only occasion where a “citizen” can also be an “individual” is when they are abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911 and interface to the I.R.C. under a tax treaty with a foreign country as an alien pursuant to 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-7(a)(1)

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings [governments] of the earth [lawfully] take customs or taxes, from their sons [citizens and subjects] or from strangers ["aliens", which are synonymous with "residents" in the tax code, and exclude "citizens"]?”
Peter said to Him, "From strangers ["aliens"/"residents" ONLY. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii) and 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d)(3)]."
Jesus said to him, "Then the sons ["citizens" of the Republic, who are all sovereign "nationals" and "non-resident non-persons" under federal law] are free [sovereign over their own person and labor. e.g. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY]. "
[Matt. 17:24-27, Bible, NKJV]

“Nonresident
alien individual” if a public officer in the U.S. government. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(ii)
"non-resident NON-person" if NOT a public officer in the U.S. government.

NOTES:

“United States” is statutorily defined as federal territory
within 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), 7701(a)(39), and 7408(d),
and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). It does not expressly include any Constitutional
state of the Union and therefore, by the rules of statutory construction,
they are purposefully excluded.

The “District of Columbia” is defined as a federal corporation
but not a physical place, a “body politic”, or a de jure “government”
within the District of Columbia Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, 426,
Sec. 34. See: Corporatization and Privatization
of the Government, Form #05.024; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

American nationals who are domiciled outside of federal jurisdiction,
either in a state of the Union or a foreign country, are “nationals”
but not “citizens” under federal law. They also qualify as
"nonresident aliens" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) if occupying a public office or "non-resident NON-persons" if not occupying a public office. See sections 4.11.2 of the Great
IRS Hoax for details.

Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet
the requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.

"FEDERAL ZONE"=District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories
and insular possessions of the United States in the above table.

The term “individual”
as used on the IRS form 1040 means an “alien”
engaged in a “trade
or business”. All “taxpayers” are “aliens” engaged in
a “trade or business”. This is confirmed by 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c
)(3), 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2). Statutory “U.S.
citizens” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401 are not “individuals”
unless temporarily abroad pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911 and subject to an income tax treaty with a foreign
country. In that capacity, statutory “U.S.
citizens” interface to the I.R.C. as “aliens” rather than
“U.S. citizens” through the tax treaty.

A very frequent point of confusion and misunderstanding even within
the legal profession is the definition of geographical terms in the
various contexts in which they are used. The table below is provided
to clear up this confusion in order that people do not misinterpret
geographical terms by applying them outside their intended context.
Using this page is VERY important for those who will be reading and
researching state and federal law. The differences in meaning
within the various contexts are primarily a consequence of the Separation
of Powers Doctrine.

What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State”
in the context of federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!)
federal States only underTitle
48 of the U.S. Code[4],
and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This
is true inmost cases and especially
in the Internal Revenue Code. The lower case word “state”
in the context of federal statutes and regulations means one of the
50 union states, which are “foreign
states”, and “foreign countries” with respect to the federal government
as clearly explained in section 5.2.11 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302(OFFSITE LINK)book. In the context of the above, a “Union State” means
one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not the
federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United
States of America.

If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of
powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional
efforts to destroy this separation, see the following references:

3.4. Includes "a person who, though not a citizen of the United States[**], owes permanent allegiance to the United States**" defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B). The use of the term "person" is suspicious because only HUMANS can owe allegiance and not creations of Congress called "persons", all of whom are offices in the government. If it means a CONSTITUTIONAL "person" then it is OK, because all constitutional "persons" are humans.

4. “nationals of the United States***", "State nationals", or "nationals of the United States*** of America"

4.1. A POLITICAL status not tied to a geographical place. Allegiance can exist independent of geography.

4.4. In general, born in any one of the several states of the Union but not in a federal territory, possession, or the District of Columbia. Not domiciled in the federal zone.

4.5. Not subject to the “police power” of the federal government or most “acts of Congress”.

4.6. Owes Allegiance to the sovereign people, collectively and individually, within the body politic of the constitutional state residing in.

4.7. May serve as a state jurist or grand jurist involving only parties with his same citizenship and domicile status.

4.8. May vote in state elections.

4.9. At this time, all “state nationals” are also a “USA National”. But not all “USA nationals” are a “state national” (for example, a USA national not residing nor domiciled in a state of the Union).

4.10. Is a man or woman whose unalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his state constitution against state actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

Statutory “U.S. citizens”
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 have civil rights under federal law that are similar
but inferior to the natural rights of state nationals in state courts.
We say almost because "civil rights" are statutory creations of Congress
that may be taken away at any time and therefore are really privileges and franchises disguised to "look" like rights.
“U.S. citizens” are privileged subjects/servants of Congress,
under their protection as a "resident" and “ward” of a federal State, a
person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United
States defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution).
The individual Union states may not deny to these persons any federal
privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them within “acts
of Congress” or federal statutes. Federal citizens come under
admiralty law (International Law) when litigating in federal courts.
As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured
and protected in federal courts by the Constitutions of the States,
or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as "allodial"
(absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights
to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

Another important element of citizenship is that
artificial entities like corporations are citizens for the purposes
of taxation but cannot be citizens for any other purpose.

“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that
provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities
of citizens of the several States.”
[Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]

We have prepared
a venn diagram showing all of the various types of citizens so that
you can properly distinguish them. The important thing to notice about
this diagram is that there are multiple types of “citizens of the United
States” and “nationals of the United States” because there are multiple
definitions of “United States” according to the Supreme Court, as we
showed in section 1 earlier.

”United States” is described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(38), (a)(36) and 8 C.F.R. §215.1(f) and includes only federal territory and possessions and excludes all Constitutional Union states. This is a product of the separation of powers doctrine that is the heart of the United States Constitution.

E-Verify CANNOT be used by those who are a NOT lawfully engaged
in a public office in the U.S. government at the time of making
application. Its use is VOLUNTARY and cannot be compelled.
Those who use it MUST have a Social Security Number or Taxpayer
Identification Number and it is ILLEGAL to apply for, use, or disclose
said number for those not lawfully engaged in a public office in
the U.S. government at the time of application. See: Why It Is Illegal for
Me to Request or Use a "Taxpayer Identification Number",
Form #04.205
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/WhyTINIllegal.pdf

For instructions useful in filling out the forms mentioned in
the above table, see the following OFFSITE LINKS:

Whenever you are reading a particular law, including
the U.S. Constitution, or a statute, the Sovereign referenced
in that law, who is usually the author of the law, is referenced in
the law with the first letter of its name capitalized. For instance,
in the U.S. Constitution the phrase “We
the People”,
“State”, and
“Citizen” are
all capitalized, because these were the sovereign entities who were
writing the document residing in the States. This
document formed the federal government and gave it its authority.
Subsequently, the federal government wrote statutes to implement the
intent of the Constitution, and it became the Sovereign, but only in
the context of those territories and lands ceded to it by the union
states. When that federal government then refers in statutes to
federal “States”,
for instance in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d), then these federal “States”
are Sovereigns because they are part of the territory controlled
by the Sovereign who wrote the statute, so they are capitalized.
Foreign states referenced in the federal statutes then must be in lower
case. The sovereign 50 union states, for example, must be in lower
case in federal statutes because of this convention because they are
foreign states. Capitalization is therefore always relative
to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is
therefore capitalized. The exact same convention is used in
the Bible, where
all appellations of God are capitalized because they are sovereigns:
“Jesus" ”, “God”,
“Him”, “His”,
“Father”.
These words aren’t capitalized because they are proper names, but because
the entity described is a sovereign
or an agent or part of the sovereign. The only exception
to this capitalization rule is in state revenue laws, where the state
legislators use the same capitalization as the Internal Revenue Code for “State” in referring to federal enclaves
within their territory because they want to scam money out of you.
In state revenue laws, for instance in the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) sections 17018 and 6017,
“State”
means a federal State within the boundaries of California and described
as part of the Buck Act of 1940 found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-113.